Is Warhammer 40K a "good" setting? If so, why or why

File: image.jpg (371KB, 1206x1468px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1206x1468px

>>44632742
It's a fun setting with something for everyone. It wasn't intended to be taken entierly serious in its conception.

>>44632742
I'd say its a decent setting.
Mostly, the thing that ruins it is how it only really makes reference to the war aspects of the setting, which I know is kind of stupid of me to say because its a war game, but truthfully? If you ever play a game of Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader, it can sometimes be hard to pinpoint the more "civilian" side of the setting accurately.

Honestly, though, I can't find much wrong with it, there are far worse settings.

It's a good "entry" setting to get people invested in traditional games. Not a ton of depth but a lot of simple and wholesome masculine grimdark fun.

>>44632742
its a somewhat over the top fun grimdark setting with a ginormous fluff behind it

so yes it is

File: 1394920677907.jpg (64KB, 210x265px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 210x265px

>>44632782
>It's a fun setting with something for everyone. It wasn't intended to be taken entierly serious in its conception.
Indeed!

>>44632742
It's fun, but I'm not sure whether I'd say good?

It doesn't really do anything original, but that's not a bad thing really.
Doesn't seem to be sure whether it wants to be serious or more of a parody (varies depending on writer/edition) with different fans wanting it different ways.

>>44632742

Oh wow, this is gonna cause some skub.

Anyways, 40k is, in THEORY, a good setting, at least for roleplaying - lots of flexibility as far as fluff due to how loose the Imperium plays stuff, but still with some clear rules binding it all together. It's got a great aesthetic (well, for the most part. But the FFG RPGs show the aesthetic done well). It's very easy for a GM to play it very shallow and stupid and killy, or incredibly deep if you go for more of the horror aspects.

Basically if you approach 40k looking for Sci Fi, you will be miserable. If you treat it as Gothic Fantasy, you'll have much more fun.

>>44632794
I would recommend reading the Shira Calpurnia trilogy then. It's all humans, all in the Imperium. Well, okay, some mutants but they're sanctioned.

It's like the low-fantasy version of WH40k with everything turned down to, like, 7 or 8.

>>44632905
>somewhat over the top

You mean the setting that has the giant mechas that are also castles with dick guns? How is that just "somewhat"?

>>44632794

See, the thing is, 40k is a setting that really rewards imagination from its players. Beyond the established, there is TONS of "well, the Imperium doesn't give a fuck as long as you pay your taxes". While all the Adeptus groups do have a binding culture and custom, individual planets and their civilians are pretty varied, and you can really do what you like.

>>44632984
>Basically if you approach 40k looking for Sci Fi, you will be miserable.
No wonder, really. 40K doesn't even try to be proper sci-fi.

I don't think so. It can be fun, and it houses the games within it well enough, but it's held together by spit and duct tape and has so many retcons that relatively few details ever considered part of it are still actually part of the setting.
If it was more consistent over time, it would be "better" as a setting, but as is, it can't really be held up as a good example.

File: image.jpg (806KB, 1320x1750px) Image search: [Google]

806KB, 1320x1750px

>>44633091
One of the major source materials 40k drew from is 2000AD's Nemesis the Warlock that is increadibly heavy handed on purpose and draws a lot of influences from Michael Moorcock's fantasy stories.

>>44632742
It's a setting.

>>44632742
>Is Warhammer 40K a "good" setting?

Yes.

>If so, why or why not? What are its strengths

It's fun. It's scale gives you the option to do almost anything you want in it. As a setting it provides infinite options for story telling. When every anyone asks "can I do X in 40K" the answer is always "yes" if you have a little imagination.

>what are its weaknesses?

It's fan base and writers. With a few notable exceptions, far too many of the people who like 40K lack originality and depth of perspective. They're either obnoxiously Grim Derp or shameless fan boys.

Don't get me wrong, that kind of thing definitely has a place in 40K, but too many people can't seem to get past it and find the deeper potential in the setting. That's what I liked about Abnett's pre-HH stuff. He added to the setting by creating new people, places, and groups. He took a setting which allows infinite creativity and actually got creative.

>>44633002
>How is that just "somewhat"?

The giant mecha don't show up often.

>>44632742
I would say its biggest weakness is that as games workshop drives the tabletop into the ground people will eventaly use interest in the setting

On the other hand its success in vidya may keep it afloat.

>>44635586
It shows up often enough in between planets getting blown up.

File: Squat.jpg (64KB, 738x936px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 738x936px

>>44632742
>Strengths
Squats
>Weaknesses
Games Workshop

>>44636825
And planets being blown up us so rare that it always gets mentioned in the fluff.

You can do pretty much anything with it, if you have a good imagination.

There's a lot of good setting material in the 40k universe. Unfortunately it's mostly obscured by decades of rewrites, retcons, finance oriented decisions and a strange paralysis where despite whatever developments occur the universe can't actually change.

Used right, the 40k universe can be a great setting. It can actually be at least three or four different great settings. But that requires going through the material with a fine toothed comb, choosing the pieces which work together and effectively building your own smaller, more limited setting from the sprawling mass of stuff GW has published.

The three 'main styles' of 40k, as far as I see it, is the ultra bleak sincere grim dark, the weirdly straight faced ridiculous awesome, and my preferred flavour, the absurdist black comedy of an insane wartorn universe. There are likely others, I can't claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of 40k fluff.

>>44638907
Thats true with any setting :/

>>44632828
>not a ton of depth

Why do you say this?

>>44632742
>and what are its weaknesses?
The related company and that once you start tinkering with actual numbers, logic and limited resources the setting fall apart easily.


But it's an enjoyable and vast conglomeration of tropes melted in an original way, silly, yet grimdark and epic at the same time depending on how you approach it, it's also a big galaxy with a big timeline and big factions, lots of space for personal inputs.

>>44632742
I think it is. It's a cool setting with a lot of fun things about it and a really nice and atmosphere and aesthetic. I suppose the main problem is that it doesn't really make much sense when you think about it too much. The Horus Heresy novels could have been a chance to clean up the fluff and make things somewhat sensible, but they ended up doing the opposite.

It's good because of its pretty cool handling of Orks, because the Imperium and Chaos used to be pretty cool too, and because the lore didn't used to be fucked up.

It's bad because of Tau hope and aesthetics, losing the "the codex is written by the faction members, so you can't trust it"-bit, Necrons and Tyranids with personalities, not having Doomrider and... Not having Doomrider again.

>>44632742
It's the best setting because of how bloody open ended and spread out it is. There's a shitload of reference material, virtually endless, and you have a lot of room to work with in regards to homebrew. It's far better than say, LOTR, because while LOTR tells a better story, there's very little open adventures to have in the Middle Earth setting.